Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

German A. Toro was a former employee of the defendant. Prior to his death, Toro commenced this action alleging that the defendant discriminated against him based on his age, gender, race, and national origin. He alleged that the defendant denied him a promotion, suspended his employment on two occasions, and ultimately terminated his employment based on improper discrimination and retaliation.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the fourth and sixth causes of action, which alleged employment discrimination in violation of Executive Law § 296 and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107. The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing these causes of action by showing that it had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the actions at issue. In opposition, the plaintiff, Allan B. Mendelsohn, as trustee of the estate of German A. Toro, failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the reasons proffered for the actions of the defendant were a mere pretext for unlawful discrimination (see Cotterell v State of New York, 129 A.D.3d 653 [2015]; Miranda v ESA Hudson Val., Inc., 124 A.D.3d 1158, 1161-1162 [2015]; Gordon v Kadet, 95 A.D.3d 606 [2012]; Best v Peninsula N.Y. Hotel Mgt., 309 A.D.2d 524 [2003]; Pramdip v Building Serv. 32B-J Health Fund, 308 A.D.2d 523 [2003]; Jordan v American Intl. Group, 283 A.D.2d 611 [2001]).

The defendant also established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the fifth and seventh causes of action, which alleged unlawful retaliation in violation of Executive Law § 296 and Administrative Code of City of New York § 8-107. The defendant established, prima facie, that it did not unlawfully retaliate against Toro based on his protected activity of filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint or related activity, and that it had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged actions. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Swan v St. John's Univ., 116 A.D.3d 946 [2014]; Brightman v Prison Health Serv., Inc., 108 A.D.3d 739, 741-742 [2013]; Baldwin v Cablevision Sys. Corp., 65 A.D.3d 961, 967 [2009]).

The parties' remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination.